Add "2016 (S)" to 1 Dollar "American Silver Eagle" [solved]

Regarding N#1493, there is an inconsistency with the 2016 business strike mintages. Namely, 2016 (W) and 2016 (P) are given their own mintage entry while 2016 (S) is not and shares its entry with “2016”.

PCGS provides a separate catalogue entry for 2016 (S).

• 2016 $1 Silver Eagle 30th Anniversary (#570522)
• 2016-(P) $1 Silver Eagle (#624786)
• 2016-(S) $1 Silver Eagle 30th Anniversary (#593534)
• 2016-(W) $1 Silver Eagle 30th Anniversary (#570523)
  https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/bullion-coins/silver-eagles/type-1-normal/2950
   

These four mintages are visually identical with no mint marks present. That's an argument to collapse these entries to a single “2016” entry. However, other year mintages seem to distinguish coins without mint marks that can be traced to a specific mint. I feel that 2016 should be consistent with other years (and PCGS and NGC) and adopt a distinct entry for “2016 (S)”.

If they are truly indistinguishable from each other, they should be rather merged.

Merged or separated, as long as they are made consistent. The minimal change would be to add “2016 (S)”, especially considering the other years; that would also match PCGS and NGC. I think given the number of “(P)”, “(W)”, and “(S)” entries, removing them all to make consistent that way would likely be more problematic for collectors who might have one of each in different condition or with different comments not including the origin mint - their entries would all be merged under the year. 

Sorry, i dont understand : if they are undistinguishable, how collectors do to distinguish them?

Boxes of 500 coins bear markings from the mint that allow the entire box to be validated. So it's not the coin itself but rather the container/packaging. Collectors buy individual graded coins slabbed by PCGS and NGC and pay a premium for the mint validation that these companies provide. https://coinweek.com/pcgs-attribute-branch-mint-marks-silver-eagles/

But the coins are the same, right?

Jarcek

But the coins are the same, right?

I think this says it all:

I understand but we are talking about the coins, not their boxes, though…

Jarcek

But the coins are the same, right?

Compendium

I understand but we are talking about the coins, not their boxes, though…

Right now 2016 (S) is being treated differently than other mints even though the circumstances are exactly the same.  As the OP requested, either merge the others or separate the 2016 (S) to match the others.

Also, I believe the Canada and Australia coin catalogs do not come close to the “but the coins are the same” rule.

As I see it there are two options for consistency:

OPTION 1: Add 2016 (S)

OPTION 2: merge 2016 (P) and 2016 (W) with 2016. Then merge 2017 (P), 2017 (S), and 2017 (W) with 2017. Likewise merge these four variations as applicable for 2018, 2019, 2020, both 2021 designs, 2022, and 2023. Then remember not to allow these variations in future years. 

IMPACT: OPTION 2 is a lot more work for the admin… OPTION 1 seems a lot less disruptive to collectors than OPTION 2 as well. If a collector has entered a 2016 (P), 2016 (W), 2020, 2020 (W), and 2020 (S), then Option 2 would merge these into 2x 2016 and 3x 2020, discarding the mint information. I would be upset if my entries got merged this way and I had to go back to my physical collection to determine which variations I was missing and add comments. 

I could understand the view that OPTION 2 is the technically correct option, but now that the “mistake” has been repeated so many times, it's no longer the best option for the community. For someone of this persuasion I would ask, wouldn't you rather aid collectors than be technically correct?

Contrariwise, I can understand the view that OPTION 1 is technically correct. No, there's no difference between the coins held in a “2016 (S)” holder and the coin held in a “2016” holder, but they fetch different auction prices and are collected differently. I'm sure a similar conversation took place before PCGS and NGC decided to catalog these variations distinctly. I really think Numista should follow their lead.

Hello,

If the coins have no visible differences, they should not have a separate line.

The information about the mint comes from external information (which don't seem 100% reliable, as illustrated by the update at the top of the article https://coinweek.com/pcgs-attribute-branch-mint-marks-silver-eagles/) . Similar to the pedigree of a coin, it should be mentioned as a comment to the collection.

I will rework the lines of the page N#1493 since 2014 and merge the lines with no mintmarks. Collectors who entered their coin in the line (P), (S) or (W) will automatically get that information added as a comment to the coin in their collection.

Apart from that, the information on the Numista lines differ from what I see in the Red Book (76th edition, 2023). For example, Numista has 5 lines for the year 2015:

• 2015 Burnished Uncirculated
• 2015 (S) and (W) - mintage 47 000 000
• 2015 P - mintage 79 640
• 2015 W Burnished Uncirculated - mintage 223 879
• 2015 W Proof - mintage 707 518

whereas the Red Book has only 3 lines:

• 2015 (W), (P), (S) - mintage 47,000,00
• 2015 W Burnished - mintage 201,188
• 2015 W Proof - mintage 707,518

and the Red Book describes that burnished coins do have a mintmark.

I'm confused that Numista has two lines for Burnished (without mintmark and with mintmark W), which is not consistent with the Red Book, and the mintage figures don't match.
Can you recommend another source, so we can cross-check?

Matrix of Numista, SCWC, NGC, Red Book , PCGS and USACoinBook.  NGC, PCGS and USACoinBook recognize that (P) and (W) can be distinguish as described above.  From this I think it's clear that if Numista doesn't list the (P), (S) and (W) separate then there should be only 3 year lines.  My guess is that the year lines were added in “real time” on guesses what the mint would produce  That is, they were added in early 2015 before all coins were released and then modified during the year but never consolidated when all was done.  I think it's obvious there needs to be only 3 year lines as shown in green.  (My Red Book 2020 has 223,879 for the burnished UNC.)

I will rework the lines of the page N#1493 since 2014 and merge the lines with no mintmarks. Collectors who entered their coin in the line (P), (S) or (W) will automatically get that information added as a comment to the coin in their collection.

My coins already have public and private comments, so I hope that information will be appended.

In that case, you'll also want to do the same for  2012 (S + W) and for the newer N# 298883 (updated reverse).

I'm not aware of a 2015 Burnished that's not marked with a W. The 2015 W is burnished. The 2015 (W) is not. PCGS agrees https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/bullion-coins/silver-eagles/type-1-normal/2950

Thank you for making this consistent.

Hello,

I have updated the coins N#1493 and N#298883 for years 2012 to 2023 using data from the Red Book 2023 and usacoinbook.com.

The lines for coins without mintmarks have been merged. When a merged line previously had the indication of a mint, it has been added as comment to the collections.

Thank you!